9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders impugned, it can be seen that the amount directed to be deposited in the three cases in Ext.P10(a), P10(b) and P10(c) are not substantial part of the demand, but are only 20% of the demand raised and on that basis, the said judgment of the Supreme Court could be distinguished. However, in M/S ARCHANA AGENCIES VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER [ 2014 (5) TMI 1024 - KERALA HIGH COURT] , the learned single Judge of this Court had held that the requirement of giving reasons, although minimal in stay orders in matters of taxation, the same cannot be understated and also that the duty to give reasons is only conducive to fairness - the learned single Judge of this Court in the decision in SHYLA PUSHPAN, K.P. PUSHYA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itional Bench, Kottayam, as evident from Ext.P7 series. The stay petition filed along with the appeals were considered and orders were passed granting stay on condition of deposit of 20% of the demand. Petitioner is challenging the orders granting conditional stay on the ground that the same are not speaking orders. According to the petitioner, no reasons are forthcoming as to the basis for imposing the condition of deposit of 20%. 3. I have heard Adv.Anil D.Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader Dr.Thushara James. 4. In support of the aforesaid contentions, Adv.Anil D.Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decisions in Ravi Gupta v. Commissioner of Sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch an order. Hence challenge against Ext.P10 fails. 8. However, the challenge against Exts.P10(a), P10(b) and P10(c) stands on a different footing since the orders therein are different from that extracted above. The order passed by the Tribunal while granting stay for the assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 are identically worded and are as follows :- Heard. Stay granted on condition that the appellant shall deposit 20% of demand amount and execute bond for the balance amount within 30 days from today. 9. Perusal of the above order will evidence the distinction mentioned earlier between the orders in Ext.P10 and those in Ext.P10(a), P10(b) and P10(c). The latter orders are not passed on consent, but, are issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted due to absence of reasons. 12. The impugned orders in Exts.P10(a), P10(b) and P10(c) stands on the same footing as in Shyla Pushpan's case since reasons have not been stated for imposing the condition of payment of 20% of the total amount. I am therefore of the opinion that the said three orders are liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly Exts.P10(a), P10(b) P10(c) relating to the assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 shall stand set aside and the Tribunal shall pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioners. Since Ext.P10 order is passed with the consent of the petitioners as observed earlier, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. However, having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
